1. In the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the scope cited below shall be cancelled.

1. The basic facts;

2. As to the assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The reasons why the court should explain this part of the plaintiff's argument are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the reasons why this part of the plaintiff's argument are the same as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, this part of the judgment is cited as it is included in the summary of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The plaintiff's reasoning is examined as to the nature of the construction agreement of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant. In full view of Gap's evidence 2, 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6-5, evidence No. 6-5, and evidence No. 6-5, the whole argument in the testimony of the witness I of the court of first instance, the defendant is called "value-added tax, industrial accident insurance premium, employment insurance premium, health insurance premium, pension premium

) From the deducted amount of expenses actually incurred in the Corporation, the remainder of 22% limited in the installments to the Plaintiff and C was paid as the construction cost of the instant case. On January 209, the Defendant promised to receive 11,000,000 won advance payment of the instant work from the Plaintiff and promised to pay it as the construction cost of the instant construction work, and prepared and executed each letter (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (2)) with the purport to assume all civil and criminal responsibilities at the time of occurrence of various problems related to the construction work. The Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff continued to perform the instant construction-related work, such as the management of government water supply materials, design change, and settlement due to the closure of the construction work at the site office at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work at December 209.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant received only 78% of the net construction cost to be paid by the plaintiff and agreed to perform the instant construction work under his/her responsibility.

B. Next, the Plaintiff’s four premiums incurred in the course of performing the instant construction work is the amount equivalent to 78% of the net construction cost that the Defendant is paid.